My biggest gripe so far...the team ratings

I was just checking out ESPN.com and reading the NBA section and they have posted the first set of power rankings. And they look very good to me, unfortunately they are so different from those of Live, I almost feel like I am playing a video game from a different year. I mean, just look at the top 15 of each:

ESPN experts
1. Pistons
2. Spurs
3. T-Wolves
4. Heat
5. Pacers
6. Nuggets
7. Rockets
8. Kings
9. Jazz
10. Mavericks
11. Suns
12. Grizzlies
13. Lakers
14. Blazers
15. Warriors

Now the NBA Live Ratings:
1. Kings
2. Grizzlies
3. Pistons
4. Hornets
5. Lakers
5. Mavericks
5. Spurs
8. Knicks
9. Raptors
10. Wizards
11. Celtics
11. Nuggets
13. Rockets
13. Magic
13. Blazers

I mean, HOLY CRAP, what a difference. Its ridiculous. Now dont start Flaming me and saying that you can just adjust the ratings, Im aware of that, its just not a simple as say, making Webber a better rebounder or something. I mean, a huge majority of the roster is gone to have to undergo a makeover. And that will take alot of planning and precision.
I have made a few little changes here and there, but its not anywhere close to where it should be.
I know that there are people on the board who are working on this, and my hat goes off to you. You have the most important job right now, bringing the cure to the only sickness that Live currently has.

Good Luck guys

well nba live rates teams based on every player on the roster(even if they dont ever see the court). so teams that have great depth will be rated higher, which doesnt always translate into a great team in the real life nba.

well nba live rates teams based on every player on the roster(even if they dont ever see the court). so teams that have great depth will be rated higher, which doesnt always translate into a great team in the real life nba.

This is exactly what I was going to say... The system in Live values the depth more over the single-super-star effect... Grizzlies have so much depth and that's why they are good. They have Gasol and then they have 10 guys that are almost as good as one-another... That gives you a solid team. But teams like Miami have Shaq and Wade and pretty much no one else and thus are rated lower.

The game is simply a game... It can never reflect the real life as we know it. Atleast not yet. The truth is that Kings could have some chemistry issues with Webber and Stojko and with Vlade gone, don't expect them to be the same as last year. Vlade didn't always pan out on the court, but he's one of the likeable guys in the league and he was the glue that hold the team together... This is what I was thinking. Maybe what Stojko was thinking too.

Memphis had a very high ranking in Live 2004 too... They have the depth that no other team has. Grizzlies won 50 games last year... I'm thinking more this season... The guys are one year older and they are still a young team. They will rule the near future if they can hold the team together.

and don't forget that Dynasty Mode now has a Power Rankings feature in it. It will be interesting to see how they differ from the NBA Live team ratings over the course of a season. With factors like trades, signings, player injury, hot/cold streaks etc. playing a factor - just like with the real NBA Power Rankings.

in live 2005, teams with higher ratings do not necessarily translate to wins. I was playing as the Celtics and had little trouble beating the Wizards, even though they had a higher rating. However, I got killed by the Pacers, who has a lower rating.

And EA can't factor in everything. They have rated the teams based on their look on paper ... take the Hornets for example. Jamal Mashburn is definitly in the rating, although in real life he won't play this season. Thats why they are rated this high (which is quite surprising actually).

On the other hand, don't overrate Marc Steins Power Rankings. Its the opinion of one journalist, not the 10 commandments. The ultimate rating is only the standings as the season progresses, that you can compare to the ratings in the game.

Another factor Stein is including in his rankings is not countable for EA. Take Baron Davis for example. He has expressed he might want to get traded to a contender. Stein factored this and Vince Carters trade demand in his rankings, EA can't do that.

So don't sweat the difference ... its not as significant as you think.

TBE

While I don't agree completely with ESPN's (Miami at #4?) and Live's (Hornets, Wizards, Celtics?), I do see that Live is ranking it on depth and talent and do not take team chemistry and injuries into account. i.e. The Raptors look good on paper, but their last two seasons show otherwise because of injuries.

another thing with live, atleast from last year. when i played i usually only ran a 8 man roster to save on cap space. i would expand to 9 maybe 10 for rookies but never anymore. when i had just a 8 man team my rating would be through the roof. i was ranked best team in the nba. now if i went and signed 4 free agents my rateing would drop alot. so basicly if its like lasts years live, haveing some really bad players on your team, who wont ever get on the court, will lower a teams rateings. maybe this can explain some of thier top 15.

well if this is the biggest gripe i would jump for joy cause its something we as a scene can change pretty easy.

Me personally, I do find that some of the player ratings are quite inaccurate. For example, Michael Redd has 85 3PT Rating and shot 35% from 3 last season, while Donyell Marshall who shot 4 more threes than Redd, and shot 40% from 3 only has a rating of 75 3PT. Some of their stuff is really inaccurate, but for the first time since 2002, I will not revamp all of the ratings, only minor changes.

im gonna go through every1s fg, 3 point, and inside scoring ratings and change them if they r horrible... otherwise i wont touch them

i dont hav the game yet, but i hear that rip hamilton has a 72 fg... he should hav an 81-83 fg imo... hes a great midrange shooter, but not a great 3 point shooter.

also guys like stackhouse r nice mid range... he could be 79-80 fg.